Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gained fame for breaking one-day online donation records, but he's still considered an underdog by many because of his single-digit polling and arguably radical views on a variety of issues. For one thing, he supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that seems more at home with the Democrats these days. So why is he up there, debate after debate, standing out from the likes of Huckabee and Romney and McCain? Why isn't he trying to fit in if he wants to win the primary? Is he even a Republican?

He told me he is--just not the same kind as the rest of them.

"I think their definitions are different," he said. "Today, the Party has been taken over by a group called neoconservatives, and I don't believe they're really conservative. I think they're really liberal in the modern sense of the word--they're big spenders, they believe in entitlements, they believe in military adventurism."

Paul certainly doesn't believe in "military adventurism." He articulated an anti-preemption stance, geard toward avoiding another inextricable, Iraq-like conflict in the future. And unlike some politicians, he usually acts in accordance with his stated philosophy. For example, he was one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.

"The traditional conservative--which the Republicans used to be--did not advocate aggressive war, usually got our country out of the wars such as after Korea and Vietnam..." he said. "We've done exactly the opposite. And because I'm a strict constitutionalist, this has separated me from the other candidates."

Some have called Ron Paul an isolationist, in part because of his views on foreign aid and the use of military force. He strongly disagreed with the association.

"I'm the last thing from an isolationist," he said. "An isolationist is a protectionist--they want to build walls around their country. They may want to bring troops home, but they also want to close the door for trade and travel and the spreading of ideas, and that's quite different. The Founders, I think, had it right when they said, 'Trade with people, be friends with people, but don't get involved in their internal affairs and don't get involved in entangling alliances,' and you'd be a lot less likely to fight people that you're trading with than if you have protectionist measures and sanctions on countries [like] we do today."

He added: "The same individuals who claim I might be an isolationist are the ones who are putting sanctions on countries like Iran and Iraq and Sudan, and yet the trade might stop us from fighting. I, for instance, think we should be trading with Castro, rather than putting sanctions on Castro, because it didn't do any good--after 40 or 50 years, it hasn't helped us a bit."

Finally, Paul believes that the United States should not be entirely dependent on other nations for its energy.

"I think the most important thing is to let the market set the price of energy and get out of the way of alternative energy," he said. "We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. So the most important thing is to recognize that the government bureaucrats and politicians have no idea what is the best alternative fuel, but if the market pushes the price of oil up, then people are going to say, 'Hey, they're running out of oil! And oil is now $200 a barrel, we better do something,' and the market's going to come up with the best alternative."

These goals may seem ambitious, but Paul is conservative about what he could accomplish unilaterally, stressing that he would need to rely on congressional support that a mandate, in the form of his successful election to the presidency, would grant him.

"You could [unilaterally] change the foreign policy and bring troops home and save a lot of money. And you could start repealing executive orders that have been so onerous. And you could refuse to enforce laws that are put on the books through regulations and by court orders or executive orders. So you could be discreet in what you enforce, but to really, really have the big changes, yes, you have to work and develop a consensus on what you're trying to do."

Ron Paul is being trashed by Michael Savage on his radio show. He talked about RP's comments on the death of the former leader of Pakistan and how isolationism is stupid. I know that it is off topic, but I could not open a new thread for some reason.

Taco John

12-27-2007, 06:14 PM

Isolationism is definitely stupid. It's almost as stupid as interventionism. This is why the founders advised the best of both worlds: non-intervention. Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

penchief

12-27-2007, 07:41 PM

I've said the same thing a million times:

Real conservatives would "conserve" the earth's resources instead of raping those resources for the sake of short term profits. A true "conservative" would prefer a conservative approach to foreign policy instead of an over-aggressive, self-destructive, economics-based approach.

IMO, the entire neo-concept of economy-based corporate conservatism corrupts the fundamental concept of what it means to be conservative. In fact, I consider myself to be way more conservative than most people who call themselves conservative.

Taco John

12-27-2007, 08:38 PM

You are a neo-jackhole.

penchief

12-27-2007, 09:35 PM

You are a neo-jackhole.

And you are proving yourself to be a weak-on-the-draw-neo-bandwaggoner. When pressed to substantiate your shilling of Ron Paul's Semi-libertarianism with your own reasoning, you resort to name-calling and insinuations.

Someone who claims to be as educated and as well-equipped with the political truth as you claim to be should easily be able to rise above name-calling by simply pointing out where I am wrong.

patteeu

12-28-2007, 06:18 AM

Isolationism is definitely stupid. It's almost as stupid as interventionism. This is why the founders advised the best of both worlds: non-intervention. Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is stupid. Is that a little more clear?

BucEyedPea

12-28-2007, 10:10 AM

Ron Paul's fp is what Bush ran on and won.

Bush's new fp is stupid.

BucEyedPea

12-28-2007, 10:13 AM

"The U.S. has now seen the leadership of both France and "Germany pass to figures who believe, as a general matter, that American power is a force for good in the world, and not something that needs persistently to be constrained. Let's hope that in 2009 the U.S. still has a leader who concurs." - Paul Mirengoff, 6 May 2007

Do you know that Mirengoff wanted to take the ME, in particular Iraq, in order to re-create it aka nation-build. Long before 9/11 he wrote "maybe we'll get lucky" when referring to an incident that could create a reason to go in there. Guess they got luckk, 'eh?

patteeu

12-28-2007, 10:26 AM

Ron Paul's fp is what Bush ran on and won.

:rolleyes:

Ron Paul is everything to everyone. His foreign policy is all good things without the bad. None of Ron Paul's policies would create unintended consequences. Ron Paul once thought he was wrong but he was mistaken. Blah blah blah.

FWIW, I don't recall GWB campaigning on the idea of closing our foreign bases around the world and bringing our troops home, but maybe I just missed it. And on a personal note, Ron Paul can expect the same support I gave GWB in 2000.

Nightfyre

12-28-2007, 10:33 AM

:rolleyes:

Ron Paul is everything to everyone. His foreign policy is all good things without the bad. None of Ron Paul's policies would create unintended consequences. Ron Paul once thought he was wrong but he was mistaken. Blah blah blah.

FWIW, I don't recall GWB campaigning on the idea of closing our foreign bases around the world and bringing our troops home, but maybe I just missed it. And on a personal note, Ron Paul can expect the same support I gave GWB in 2000.
Honestly, when was the last time the US gave peace a chance? sometime before we colonized the Philippines?

patteeu

12-28-2007, 10:37 AM

Do you know that Mirengoff wanted to take the ME, in particular Iraq, in order to re-create it aka nation-build. Long before 9/11 he wrote "maybe we'll get lucky" when referring to an incident that could create a reason to go in there. Guess they got luckk, 'eh?

No, I didn't know that, but it wouldn't surprise me that much. Afterall, the idea of regime change in Iraq in order to advance US interests wasn't all that radical in the late 90's. Certainly nowhere near the fringe as the idea of imposing an 18th century foreign policy on the most 21st century nation in the world.

I'd be interested to see his comments in context though. Can you direct me to the whole statement?

BucEyedPea

12-28-2007, 11:03 AM

No, I didn't know that, but it wouldn't surprise me that much. Afterall, the idea of regime change in Iraq in order to advance US interests wasn't all that radical in the late 90's. Certainly nowhere near the fringe as the idea of imposing an 18th century foreign policy on the most 21st century nation in the world.
'Er, no, sorry but you have this wrong. Your foreign policy of neo-colonialism, mercantilism ( need their raw resource of oil to sell elsewhere) and imperialism is not only 18th century but goes back to ancient time of the Romans—even before. You're the reactionary here. What our Founders sought was a new way away from all this. Man's nature doesn't change, particularly those who want power, even if they go from wooden ships to metal ones. Just the tools they use to do it changes aka more advanced technology.

Oh yes, and our fp is a bipartisan one too. Expect the Dems to carry the same nation-building, under new guises.

'd be interested to see his comments in context though. Can you direct me to the whole statement?
I read it awhile ago and can't recall where. ( I suspect it was in the "Clean Break" write-up maybe?) I've wanted to find it again for reference to put in one of my folders but I've been too busy.

HonestChieffan

12-28-2007, 11:08 AM

Pauls followers fall into the neo kook category.

Iowanian

12-28-2007, 11:58 AM

"they end them......."

With overwheming, brutal destructive force that Liberals won't allow.

patteeu

12-28-2007, 11:58 AM

'Er, no, sorry but you have this wrong. Your foreign policy of neo-colonialism, mercantilism ( need their raw resource of oil to sell elsewhere) and imperialism is not only 18th century but goes back to ancient time of the Romans—even before. You're the reactionary here. What our Founders sought was a new way away from all this. Man's nature doesn't change, particularly those who want power, even if they go from wooden ships to metal ones. Just the tools they use to do it changes aka more advanced technology.

I don't think sticking your head in the sand and hoping your marauding neighbors will leave you alone is as new as you think it is.

I read it awhile ago and can't recall where. ( I suspect it was in the "Clean Break" write-up maybe?) I've wanted to find it again for reference to put in one of my folders but I've been too busy.

OK, well if you come across it, maybe you can bump this thread or post it elsewhere.

Nightfyre

12-28-2007, 12:07 PM

I don't think sticking your head in the sand and hoping your marauding neighbors will leave you alone is as new as you think it is.

We have marauding neighbors?

StcChief

12-28-2007, 12:09 PM

Honestly, when was the last time the US gave peace a chance? sometime before we colonized the Philippines?
Ok John Lennon....

when was the last time communists, radical Islam, and other dictators gave their people a chance to live in peace.

patteeu

12-28-2007, 12:55 PM

We have marauding neighbors?

We would if we didn't keep them in check. Our neighbors halfway around the world are closer to us today than the clan or tribe that lived on the other side of the mountain just a few centuries ago.

Nightfyre

12-28-2007, 01:08 PM

Ok John Lennon....

when was the last time communists, radical Islam, and other dictators gave their people a chance to live in peace.
Since when was the US the nanny for the world?

cookster50

12-28-2007, 02:11 PM

We have marauding neighbors?
They are called "illegal aliens"

KILLER_CLOWN

12-28-2007, 11:18 PM

Ok John Lennon....

when was the last time communists, radical Islam, and other dictators gave their people a chance to live in peace.

The time before we started FU***** with them? Is it true Democracy is a flawed form of government as thought by the founding fathers? Ah that must be why we were founded as a Constitutional Republic. ;) I guess i should get white house talking points so i don't have to actually think for myself. head meet sand, it works well for the ostrich right?

Iowanian

12-28-2007, 11:27 PM

You can't be serious about that answer KCl.

BucEyedPea

12-28-2007, 11:32 PM

We would if we didn't keep them in check. Our neighbors halfway around the world are closer to us today than the clan or tribe that lived on the other side of the mountain just a few centuries ago.
Yeah, that's via the internet. Most of them still can't here that easily.